I don't know about the multiple-instances thing because I've never used
multiple-instances, but I definitely agree with long filenames for animations. But I
have noticed other peculiarities, like when you do something that cuts off the undo
stack and makes it loop around. I've lost info that way. I'm guessing that POV was
written with Visual C++, because I have it and am somewhat familiar with the
AppWizard, It'll automatically put in things like Save and Load. So it may be a C++
thing.

According to the American College Dictionary they're the same. But I'll look in
Webster's New International, which is 20x as long. (Bad grammer there, starting a
sentence with a conjunction...)

Remco de Korte wrote:

> I know it's my own stupid fault and yet...
>
> I've lost hours, if not days of work by some peculiarities of the
> Windows-version of POV-Ray. First: if you load or [SAVE] a file from the editor
> the program sometimes [LOSES] focus. Another program that's running will suddenly
> come on top. I often run more then one instance of POV-Ray to do some tests in
> the background (it's even worse [THAN] that but that's not the point now). So,
> every once in a while I end up with another POV-window in front of me without
> noticing it right away. That's confusing, especially if a scene I was working on
> suddenly seems to be rendering (or not) while I didn't expect it [TO]. So I take
> the appropriate (miss)steps.
> Second: I [TRULY] wish POV-Ray, or at least the Windows version, would support
> long filenames in the output of animations. I'd like to give my scenes more or
> less meaningfull names, with a trailing letter or number to identify the
> version. On rendering it as an animation POV-Ray truncates the name (without
> prompting) and overwrites any previous version. I've had that happen more then
> once now, often enough to write this message.
> Please understand: I'm just whining, while I think POV-Ray is the best there
> ever was when it comes to software. I use it intensely (intensively?) and not
> (anymore) just because it's free. I'm no C-programmer, otherwise I would have
> tried to patch these things. BTW: is there a patch that solves this? Does the
> SuperPatch? I have it downloaded but still didn't come round to trying it (too
> busy with the original :)).
>
> Regards,
>
> Remco

Post a reply to this message